# Posted 11:54 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

KEVIN DRUM ON WILSON-MANIA: Kevin asks:

Did the Washington Post fulfill its duty to inform the public last night by running a mere eight separate pieces about Joe Wilson's outburst during President Obama's healthcare speech on Wednesday? Or is anything less than a dozen a sign that they aren't really trying anymore? After all, Politico had at least 15 Wilson-related pieces, including a big front pager by Andie Coller headlined "A Party of Cranks?"

I suppose I shouldn't complain, but unlike a lot of my fellow lefties, I'm not convinced that obsessing over Joe Wilson actually does our cause any good. It's time to send him back under the rock he crawled out from.

But if we stop talking about Wilson, we might start asking questions like how we're going to pay for healthcare reform...

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:51 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SERENA WILLIAMS, THE JOE WILSON OF TENNIS? I didn't see the outburst that cost Serena her semi-final match, but I saw (as in, television saw) her smash her racket after losing the first set. Even that was pretty jarring.

Strange. A sport where the crowd watches in respectful silence, while a champion smashes expensive equipment that most fans would be grateful to own.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (5) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:47 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

WILL PELOSI FLIP ON AFGHANISTAN? The editors of the Wall Street Journal remind Madame Speaker that she was a singing a different tune on Afghanistan not long ago:

It is well known that Mr. Obama has called Afghanistan a "war of necessity." Less publicized is that in 2007 Speaker Pelosi was also saying that our real interests were in Afghanistan. "The war on terror is in Afghanistan," Ms. Pelosi said just two years ago. "The fact that we weakened our commitment to Afghanistan in order to concentrate in Iraq has taken a toll."

We should find out soon enough whether the Speaker was serious about her commitment to Afghanistan, or just paying lip service to a popular cause. If she was serious, she'll have to stand up to her closest friends in order to prove it:

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D., Calif.), co-chair of the 82-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, said her group is unified in wanting to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

"The Progressive Caucus is pretty much together on what is going on in Afghanistan, in being against escalating and in favor of bringing the troops home," Ms. Woolsey said in a recent interview. "We will have to stand up to our own president."

Once the dust settles after the healthcare fight, Afghanistan will have its moment.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 11:22 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OBAMA VS. JOE WILSON ON THE TRUTH-O-METER: Joe G. noted earlier that Joe Wilson scored very poorly on Politifact's Truth-o-meter. Since that post, there have been five more targeting Rep. Wilson, including Kathy's moderately titled, Is there a politician lower than Joe Wilson?

I'm guessing Kathy has heard of Charlie Rangel.

Anyhow, I'm not here to defend Joe Wilson, who most people never heard of until yesterday. I'm here to look at how President Obama scores on the Truth-o-Meter. After last night's speech, Politifact awarded President Obama a Barely True for pretending that Democratic reform bills actually incorporated Republican ideas. In fact, Democrats accepted some technical amendments from the GOP.

Politifact also awarded the President a flat-out False for saying that preventive care "saves money".

In a very generous ruling, Politifact awarded Obama a True for saying

Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.

But that's just some tricky wordplay, since the real issue is whether government incentives will lead your employer to take away your coverage. That's why, less than a month ago, Politifact awarded the President a Half-true for insisting for the umpteenth time that "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

America is deciding right now whether reform its entire healthcare system, which accounts for roughly one-eighth of the entire economy. So what's more important? Whether an obscure congressman bends the truth, or whether the President of the United States bends it again and again?

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

# Posted 10:58 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OBAMA: IGNORE (OTHER PEOPLE'S) SCARE TACTICS. Those talk show hosts are awful. They say the most awful things. But it's the President who runs the country, so I'm much more concerned with his disingenuity. From last night:

Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics.

Also last night:

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result.

That's not a scare tactic, of course. It's an analysis of policy options. And the following are thoughtful illustrations, not scary stories:

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.

So I guess if I provide a few examples of terrible things that happen in Canada, I would've responsibly documented the perils of government-run healthcare?

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 10:28 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DEM CORRUPTION: The editors of the New Republic have some harsh words[subscription only] for House Democrats, who toppled a GOP majority in 2006 by promising to clean up Washington. Charlie Rangel and John Murtha, two of the most senior and powerful Democrats in the House, are an embarrassment.

Late August brought the stunning revelation that Rangel failed to note two bank accounts, each containing somewhere in the range of $250,000 and $500,000, on past financial disclosure forms. Add to this the unreported $75,000 in income from a beachfront villa, illegal rent-stabilized apartments, and other problems and you begin to understand why it is taking the ethics committee so long to sift through all of the complaints. If that weren't bad enough, there's the brazen condescension with which Rangel brushes off the allegations. "I recognize that all of you have an obligation to ask questions," Rangel recently told reporters, "knowing that there's none of you smart enough to frame it in such a way that I'm going to respond."

If Rangel thinks reporters are dumb, imagine what he thinks of his constitutents. All I know is that, somewhere, Tom Daschle is fuming about double standards.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:45 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

I FEEL AN ADDICTION COMING ON: Just watched the first episode of (the new) Battlestar Galactica. I wanted to try it, but assumed it would keep my interest for only a few episodes. My wife only agreed to watch because she is a gracious and generous woman. For the first thirty minutes, she made snide remarks. At the sixty minute mark she asked me if an hour had really gone by. At the eighty minute mark, I told her we had to go to sleep because we're going to California tomorrow. She begged for just ten more minutes. How could I say 'no'?

Please no spoilers in the comments!

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (3) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 12:38 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

PROF. MARION BARRY, DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY: Sonny already plugged Matt Labash's great article about America's most notorious mayor. I second that. The strangest thing I learned about Barry was that he came within one year of finishing a PhD in chemistry.

He was an Eagle Scout. He recited poems in church. He went to college, and stopped one year short of getting his doctorate in chemistry, quitting to join the civil rights movement. "In chemistry, there's order," he says wistfully. "In politics, there's disorder. The rules change just about every other day."

If only he had become a chemist instead.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:33 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

FELLOW REPUBLICANS, SUPPORT OBAMA NOW! The situation in Afghanistan is bad and getting worse. Young Americans are losing their lives in a war that may soon lose the support of the American people.

Fellow Americans, will we give in to despair, or will we find a new HOPE? Will we accept a painful defeat, or will we have the AUDACITY to seek a brighter future? Will we surrender to the partisanship of the old way of politics, or seek innovative BIPARTISAN solutions?

You get my drift. Several months ago, it didn't seem very interesting when leading Republicans said they would support Obama's new strategy for Afghanistan, rather than criticize it because Obama is Democrat. After all, it's easy to announce one's support for a policy that is already popular on both sides of the aisle.

Now the situation is different. But the message from Republicans (except George Will) is the same. Accustomed to accusations of hyper-partisanship, Republicans seem to be thoroughly enjoying the chance to support Obama when he's supporting a war that Democrats have increasingly turned against. Even before l'affare Will, Bill Kristol wrote,

as a decision looms for Obama on a new strategy requiring increased numbers of troops in Afghanistan, a Washington Post-ABC News poll last week discovered that "majorities of liberals and Democrats alike now, for the first time, solidly oppose the war and are calling for a reduction of troop levels." Conservatives and Republicans are far more supportive of the war--they "remain the war's strongest backers"--and a majority of conservatives don't merely support the war but say they approve of President Obama's handling of it.

So much for charges of knee-jerk or unprincipled partisanship. Conservatives support a president they generally distrust because they think it important the country win the war in Afghanistan. And despite temptations to make political hay out of a war that's getting more unpopular, and despite doubts about Obama as commander in chief, Republican political leaders remain supportive of the war effort. They are urging Obama to commit himself unambiguously to win the war and to approve General Stanley McChrystal's coming request for more troops. And in urging the administration to follow this course, they are willing to see the president get credit for doing the right thing.

Sure, we're giving ourselves a big pat on the pack. But we deserve it. Dan Senor and Peter Wehner struck a similar note in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. They write,

The president's actions have clearly unsettled some members of his own party, who hoped he would begin to unwind America's commitment in Afghanistan. Mr. Obama not only ignored their counsel; he doubled down his commitment. There should therefore be no stronger advocates for Mr. Obama's Afghanistan strategy than the GOP.

Senor and Wehner make the important observation that America has a "long history of political parties out of power advancing a neo-isolationist outlook." The GOP often gave into that temptation in the Clinton era.

Although supporting a Democratic president is certainly bipartisan, it's important not to forget the political benefits of facilitating a bitter divide between a Democratic president and his own party. For those who want a reason to describe GOP support for Obama as selfish, there it is. But usually, when someone gets ahead by doing what's right and good, progressives call it enlightened self-interest.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 9:29 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

AFGHANISTAN -- THE WSJ OFFENSIVE: George Will called for an end to counterinsurgency in Afghanistan, provoking a flood of responses from conservatives. The Wall Street Journal has given their opinions top billing.

Fred Kagan writes that the future of Pakistan depends on Afghanistan. Max Boot reminds us that we already tried to win on the cheap -- that's why it's such a mess today. Dan Senor and Peter Wehner call on Republicans to support Obama even when the going gets tough. Finally, Michael O'Hanlon and Bruce Riedel talk about what's going right in Afghanistan. Yes, I know they're Democrats. But plenty of liberals started denouncing O'Hanlon as a neo-con stooge when he dared suggest (long before it became obvious) that the surge was working in Iraq. And Riedel? Well, he led the review that led Obama to send more troops. If things keep going the way they are, the Democratic left will start talking about him they way they once did about Bob McNamara and Dean Rusk.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 7:08 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

NOT-A-REPUBLICAN LOOK AT AFGHANISTAN: In so many words, Andrew Exum (aka Abu Muqawama) describes himself as a hesitant, hedging, uncertain and humble supporter of the war in Afghanistan. What mystifies him is why Washington is turning so rapidly against the war and why the Obama White House is so afraid of criticism from the left regarding Afghanistan.

Andrew also prescribes a measure of humility and uncertaintly for arch-liberal opponents of the war, who have forgotten all too soon how they denounced the surge as a failure and denounced other Democrats for suggesting it might be a success.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 6:51 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

GEORGE WILL, ANTI-WAR ACTIVIST: I felt some serious deja vu while reading Robert's post about the hopelessness of our "endless bloody occupation" of Afghanistan. Just two years ago, the conventional wisdom was that there was nothing we could do to salvage our bloody and endless occupation of Iraq. Harry Reid told us "the war is lost" and Barack Obama insisted that sending more troops would accomplish nothing.

In his post, Robert links to George Will's recent column, in which he calls for a major withdrawal from Afghansitan. The notion that a Republican would oppose the war in Afghanistan may seem interesting, but Will was always pessimistic about the prospects for defeating the insurgency Iraq. Nonetheless, Will's stature has compelled many other Republicans to respond.

First up, Fred Kagan challenges Will's assertion that "Afghanistan would need hundreds of thousands of coalition troops, perhaps for a decade or more. That is inconceivable." Kagan applies US military doctrine to the situation and suggests that we can grow Afghan security forces up to 240,000 over the next couple of years, meanwhile supporting them with an increased Coaltion force. (Kagan, who used to teach at West Point, played an important role in designing the surge in Iraq, so he knows a thing or two about force levels.)

John Noonan challenges Will's proposal for a strategy focused on air-strikes, missile attacks and special forces. He writes,

The [counterinsurgency] efforts that have failed in the past 40 years (and there are plenty), were -- interestingly enough -- the fights that were prosecuted according to George Will's concept of operations, specifically "forces should be substantially reduced to serve a comprehensively revised policy: America should do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, air strikes and small, potent special forces units, concentrating on the porous 1,500-mile border with Pakistan." Obsession over kill counts and kinetic-ops is the quickest way to turn the local population against you and to ultimately lose the war, as exemplified by Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the Rhodesians during their Bush War.

Meanwhile, Rich Lowry explores the implications of Will's approach for Pakistan:

Will says "Pakistan actually matters." That's a very important reason to care about Afghanistan too. For the first time, Pakistan has been undertaking serious counter-insurgency operations in the border areas. And we have been supporting them with counter-insurgency operations in adjacent areas in Afghanistan. Just as Pakistan begins to get serious are we going to pull the rug out from under them?... If you want to control the border, you have to control the population near it, which means you can't just rely on special-operations forces and have to undertake counter-insurgency operations that require boots on the ground and, ultimately, a functioning indigenous army and government.

Finally, Peter Wehner takes the fight directly to George Will. As Wehner points out, Will glibly supported the invasion of Iraq, inched away from his position during the occupation, insisted the surge was a failure in late 2007, then stopped writing about Iraq once his credibility was shot. Like most people, Will fully supported the invasion of Afghanistan and praised the 2004 elections before his latest change of heart. Wehner writes,

If General David Petraeus thinks the task is hopeless, then I will take a hard second look at the war. But if George Will declares it hopeless, I will simply take a hard second look at his record.

Mr. Will has earned the reputation as one of the finest columnists alive, and one of the better ones our country has ever produced. I have admired him in the past, and I learn from him still. But on Iraq and Afghanistan, he has been wrong, unreliable, and unsteady.

Amen.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:49 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

SEN. BARRASSO'S TRIBUTE TO SEN. KENNEDY: Why did so many Republican senators have such strong feelings for Ted Kennedy? John Barrasso of Wyoming describes the personal touch that Kennedy had:

The day I got sworn into the Senate, June 25, 2007, to my knowledge he [Kennedy] was the only Democrat -- well, somebody would have been in the chair presiding -- who was there in the chamber for my swearing-in...

Later they had a little reception for me and he came to that, and he was the only Democrat there. And he spent a long time with my son Peter and my daughter Emma, who were both in college. He said, "So you're the brother, you're the sister -- you know I had some brothers." He was talking about John and Robert and Joe. He said it is good to work closely with your family. He said, "Why don't you come to my office and I'll show you some pictures of my brothers and my family?"

Then we went to his office in the Russell Building and he must have spent half an hour with Peter and Emma and me going over the pictures, with Papa Joe and Rose and the Kennedy kids and different letters that were written. I think he enjoyed it as much as we did, but for us it was an incredible lesson in history and an incredible welcome to the Senate. I think Ted Kennedy may still be my daughter's favorite senator -- more than me!

Civility can make a remarkable difference.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (1) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:46 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

DAVID GREGORY USES THE 'C' WORD: No, not that 'C' word. I'm talking about Chappaquiddick.

This weekend, Meet the Press, Face the Nation and This Week all devoted their full broadcasts to fond remembrances of Sen. Kennedy. I was curious whether they would mention the most controversial episode in his long career. On the one hand, a special measure of deference is appropriate for the recently departed. On the other, how can a serious news organization devote an entire broadcast to one man and ignore his flaws?

ABC struck the more deferential pose with no mention of what transpired on the night of July 19, 1969. In contrast, David Gregory mentioned it twice on Meet the Press. However, he provided no details about what Kennedy did or why it mattered. Perhaps one can safely assume that the audience already knows that. Yet professional news organziations rarely mention events from forty years ago without providing some measure of background.

To my surprise, Gregory directly asked Kennedy's niece, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, about Chappaquiddick:

[MR. GREGORY:] Kathleen, the imperfect part of his being was something that was very public, from Chappaquiddick to the incident in Florida in 1991 to other struggles.

MS. TOWNSEND: Right.

MR. GREGORY: How did he make--take stock of that in the end?

MS. TOWNSEND: Well, that's what--I mean, I have to say, I think that's one of the great, important parts of the Catholic faith. We used to joke we were the church of sinners rather than the church of saints, and therefore you--we're all sinners. And you can pray to God and say, "I--are you going to believe that I can make, make something better of my life?"

Half way between ABC and NBC is CBS, where Bob Schieffer made a coded reference to the incident. He said,

Ted Kennedy crashed and crashed again during the early turns of his life but somehow he kept on going through the sorrows and tragedies over which he had no control and the self-destructiveness over which he did and in the final laps he won. His children loved him.

"Crashed and crashed again"? That's eerie. On a more substantive note, Schieffer was the only Sunday morning host who challenged his guests to defend Kennedy's condemnation of Robert Bork in 1987. Schieffer said to Dianne Feinstein,

BOB SCHIEFFER: You were not there during the Bork hearings when Senator Kennedy said some very tough things. I mean, the -- the thing we always remember is the quote he gave, where he said, "Robert Bork's America
is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight race -- raids children could not be taught about evolution.” Many people said that after Senator Kennedy said that, that the whole confirmation process about Supreme Court candidates changed after that. Do you think that was a good part or a bad part of his legacy?

Well when you put the question that way...


Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (0) opinions -- Add your opinion

# Posted 5:43 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

KENNEDY NEPHEW: SENATE CONTENDER AND PROUD CHAVISTA. Not only does Jamie Kirchick have a new essay up on Doublethink Online; he also has a new article up at TNR about the warm feelings of Joe Kennedy II for Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez.

With his uncle's passing, Joe II is now a leading contender for the open Senate perch in Massachusetts. Here's the kind of wisdom Joe II might bring to US foreign policy:

Kennedy has gone out of his way to defend and even praise Chavez, telling The Wall Street Journal in 2006 that the caudillo has done “so much more” for his country’s poor than any prior leader...As for concerns about Chavez’s assault on democracy, Kennedy drew a moral equivalence between the manifold abuses of the Chavista regime and our own government, saying that there’s “ample room for improvement in the ways that people get elected in Venezuela as well as in Florida.”

Well, if Hillary can compare Nigeria's outrageous elections to the one in Florida...

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly (4) opinions -- Add your opinion